Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: stevegolfer66 Date: Jul 26, 2004 9:51am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MiniDisc Recordings

I use minidisc and I have mixed emotions. My basic philosophy is simple, if you can't hear a difference then there IS no difference. A good sounding minidisc recording does in fact sound pretty good on any stereo system, whereas MP3s, in my opinion sound basically crappy on them all. I know there are people that disagree, but my response is 'cest la vie'...everyone has an opinion.

By any measure, the quality of a recording will be a function of many factors, not the least of which is mic quality and mic positioning.

So, which is better? The good sounding ATRAC compressed minidisc recording, or the 48kHz perfectly preserved audience recording from a million rows back. Sorry, I go with the former because the end result is what matters. I do very much believe the guy who responded that his A vs. B comparison yielded no sonic differences.

Having said all of this, I also believe that IF there are better sounding recordings that are mastered with lossless compression schemes, then that recording should not be compromised by compressing to a lossy format. The difference is that the original recording is available in non-compressed format, as is the 'original' mini-disc recording.

Personally, I am 'punting' on this issue because I've pre-ordered a new Sony Hi-MD which does, in fact, record with non-compressed recording scheme's...apparently 1M of information can be saved onto a single Hi-MD disc, which holds about 1 1/2 hours of music. I love the compactness of mini-disc, but the truly wonderful feature is low battery consumption. There isn't a great power draw from mini-disc and, piggybacking AAs on top of the internal battery (as is typical of most Sharp machines and will be available on the new Sony Hi-MD machines) makes for nearly limitless power supply using readily available and INEXPENSIVE alternatives. Perfect for the festival goers that want hours and hours of recording pleasure.

BUT, I still subscribe to the notion that none of it matters if my ears like the sound of the recording.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Jul 30, 2004 6:23am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MiniDisc Recordings

Minidisc cannot be copied without generational loss... including audible artifacts like pops buzzes, dropouts...

you may not notice it on the first generation or more... but it's there, lossy trading pollutes the gene pool.

If you are going to distribute minidisc recordings, it would be best to first ' freeze ' them into a losssless format first, from your master, hopefully... then the loss will only be from your Master>lossless-format-copy generation.

and then hopefully only if there is no genuine lossless version extant...
quote: "

With all due respect, this is a silly response. FLAC has nothing to do with the question. It is the compression scheme used to make big files about 50% smaller, without losing any data in the compression process. MP3 is not lossless compression. It has nothing to do with whether a recording is orininally recording using ATRAC or non-compressed data streaming. I master my minidisc recordings and use FLAC to distribute them, just like everybody else that uses non-compressed data streaming. "
Response: yes, exactly.. if the best version of a show is minidisc, the ideal way to distribute it is by freezing it in to lossless form: shn, flac, wav, whatever, preventing further loss and eliminating generational error.

This post was modified by glenn on 2004-07-30 13:23:03